Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
The Local Mayoral Referendums
Media Briefing Pack
27th March, 2012
Chair: Lord Adonis
Gerry Stoker, Professor of Politics and Governance, University of Southampton
Tom Gash, Programme Director, Institute for Government
Keith Grint, Professor of Public Leadership & Management, University of Warwick
Peter John, Professor of Public Policy, University College London
Tel: 020 7330 9289
Email: [email protected]
2
Does having a mayor make a difference? Gerry Stoker, Professor of Politics and Governance, University of Southampton 07711441258
[email protected] A detailed, five-year evaluationi of the new mayors introduced in 2002 led Stephen Greasley and Gerry Stokerii to argue: 1. Mayors offer a different form of political leadership to local government. The components of facilitative leadership involve working in partnership, accessibility, reduced partisanship and effective decision making. Facilitative leaders use powers and abilities to draw citizens and other stakeholders into a shared vision for the locality, which draws on their aspirations, and enables the capacity of local councils and other actors to ‘place shape’ and improve service performance. 2. Leadership is not simply a product of personality, capabilities or contingency although all those factors play a part in determining the style and approach of an individual leader. Institutional design does make a difference. In the language of probabilities we argue that in mayoral authorities the institutional framing means that it is more likely that a visible, partnership-based, open and less partisan form of leadership will be practiced (see Table 1).
Table 1: Institutional differences: powers and capacities of leaders
Mayoral ‘Leader-Cabinet’
Budget and
associated policy
framework
Council can only reject
mayors proposals with a
2/3 majority. A majority
of 50% plus 1 is required
to adopt the budget and
policy framework.
Council can reject with simple majority, and
adopt an alternative with simple majority
Operational decisions Mayor is given individual
power to make decisions
Council members’ choice as expressed in the
constitution about whether decisions are
made by individuals in executive or whether
they have to be collective
Selection of cabinet
and portfolios
Mayor Cabinet may be voted in by full council, or
leader may have power to choose cabinet
and portfolios
3
3. Mayors in England with their greater decision-making authority and fewer veto constraints have provided more visible and high profile leadership. The authority of the mayor and nature of her relationship with followers encourages the development of a less partisan and more open leadership style ( see Table 2) As a result mayors appear more likely to adopt a facilitative leadership approach.
Table 2: Structural differences: relationship with followers
4. There is evidence that mayors are performing better against a range of measures (see
Table 3). Drawing on evidence from a sample survey of councillors, officers and
stakeholders in a representative sample of 40 local authorities we can provide information
on attitudes towards the changes and the new roles and relationships. Mayors, in the
opinion of those who work closely with them and in contrast to other forms of leadership in
local government, are significantly better at partnership working, involving the public in
decision-making , opening up access to decision-making to all groups in society, stopping
partisan party politics dominating and offering stronger and higher profile leadership.
Directly-
Elected
Mayor
Leader (in
Leader-
Cabinet)
Principals Electorate Councillors
Principals’ link between goals and
preferences
Relatively
flexible
Relatively
fixed
Principals’ monitoring effort Loose Potentially
Tight
Period before punishment/reward 4 years Yearly
4
Table 3: Perceptions of Impact of Leadership Forms
Agree/strongly agree that…
Leader-cabinet%
Mayor % Base Statistical significance
Partnership
The council is better at dealing with cross-cutting issues
38
48
1481 **
The council’s relations with partners has improved
43
57
1456 ***
Backbench members are more engaged
10
12 1509 n/s
Accessibility and openness
It is easy to find out who has made specific decisions
40
48
1477 **
The public is more involved in decision-making
15
30
1482 ***
It is easier for women to become involved in council business
22
34
1501 ***
It is easier for ethnic minorities to become involved in council business
19
34
1495 ***
It is easier to find out about council policy
49
59
1503 *
Partisanship
Political parties dominate decision-making
47
29
1504 ***
Profile and decision-making
Decision-making is quicker
45
61
1464 **
The role of leader has become stronger
68
79
1474 ***
The leader of the council has a higher public profile
59
82
1478 ***
n/s= non significant difference, *=p. < .05, **=p.<.01, ***=p. <. 001
5
Unpublished Institute for Government research cited in this briefing is embargoed until 06:00, Thursday 29th March 2012
Mayors: prospects and impacts Tom Gash, Programme Director, Institute for Government 07748 961 943
The Mood in the Cities
1. Many citizens in referendum cities still don’t know about the vote. Recent polling for the BBC
found that 62% of respondents in Yorkshire didn’t know the vote was coming up.iii A poll for BBC
West Midlands found 59% of Birmingham citizens are unaware of the referendum.iv Press ‘straw
polls’ conducted in the cities generally find people are unaware of the issue.v
2. Where people are aware of the issue, they generally favour mayors. New Institute for
Government polling (embargoed) found that across the country, when asked the referendum
question, 38% preferred an elected mayor, 25% preferred a council leader, 14% didn’t know and
23% had no preference.vi There was a majority in favour of mayors amongst all age groups, regions,
and socio-economic groups included in the survey.
The precise question asked matters but wider polling also shows strong underlying support. 53% of
Yorkshire respondents said they thought all cities should have elected mayors (37% no, 10% don’t
know).vii Birmingham polling found 54% of residents wanted a mayor (23% no, 23% undecided).viii A
2002 poll conducted for the (now) Department of Communities and Local Government found people
were overwhelmingly in favour of directly election in local government, see Figure 1.ix
Figure 1: “Say [council name] works so that most decisions are made by a small group of councillors with a
leading councillor, and their decisions are checked by the whole council. If that happened, do you think this
leading councillor should be...”
Source: CLG 2005
6
3. Despite this, just over half of mayoral referenda so far have resulted in ‘no’ votes. 27 out of 42
mayoral referenda so far (including the successful London Mayoral referendum) have resulted in a
‘no’ vote.x The disparity between polling and actual results could be the result of differential turnout
(average turnout in all mayoral referenda so far has been 29%, varying between 64% and 10% in
individual referendums) or down to the influence of local campaigns in the run up to the vote.xi
4. There is wide variation in the vigour and professionalism of the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns in the
cities. The most professional ‘yes’ campaigns are in Bristolxii and Birminghamxiii, both of which are
run by a coalition of residents and local business people. There are also ‘yes’ campaigns in
Newcastlexiv and Coventryxv but there appears to be little ‘yes’ campaigning in Sheffield, Nottingham,
Manchester, Leeds, Wakefield and Bradford. There are fewer ‘no’ campaigns. xviThe Birmingham ‘no’
campaign has recently raised eyebrows with a poster which compares the fight against an elected
mayor to the fight against Hitler.xvii Nationally, there are a number of high profile proponents of the
mayoral model, for example Lords Heseltine and Adonis, but no comparable figures opposing
mayors.
Bristol and Birmingham chambers of commerce have come out in support of elected mayors.
Business appears generally in favour of elected mayors on the grounds that they would find it easier
to deal with one individual with stable powers.xviii
Areas in which mayors are highly likely to make a difference
5. Directly elected mayors are more visible than leaders. New Institute for Government polling
(embargoed) finds that, in areas with traditional council leaders, just eight percent of respondents
could correctly name their local council leader.xix A 2003 poll found that, on average, 57 per cent of
voters in mayoral areas recognised the name of their local leader, compared with just 25 per cent in
neighbouring non-mayoral authorities.xx Visibility aids accountability: voters need to know who they
are holding to account in order to hold them to account effectively.
6. Mayors offer greater stability of leadership than council leaders, who can be removed at any
point by a vote of the council. Leadership turnover in the established mayoral authorities has been
a full 50% lower than in neighbouring authorities with the leader and cabinet model.xxi All three of
the London borough mayors elected in 2000 have since been re-elected twice, allowing strong stable
leadership. Over the same period, neighbouring Barking and Dagenham has had two leaders,
Waltham Forest had three, Southwark four, Camden five, Barnet six and Redbridge seven.xxii The
Institute argues that such leadership churn can be an obstacle to effective long-term policymaking.
Areas in which mayors might make a difference
7. Directly elected mayors appear to increase turnout but this impact is uncertain. A study of 57
cities across Europe found, controlling for other factors, that direct election increases voter turnout
in city elections.xxiii However, there are not yet enough examples of directly elected mayors in the UK
to conduct a similar study in the UK context.
8. Mayors appear better placed to make decisions on behalf of the whole city. Traditional council
leaders are elected by residents of their specific ward only. Because mayors are directly elected by
the whole city they have stronger incentives to approve vital infrastructure investment that,
although it may create winners as well as losers, would benefit the local economy overall. This is
most evident in the area of planning. A poll commissioned by the New Homes Marketing Board
7
found that although 81 percent of people believed that Britain needs more housing, just 50 percent
wanted more homes in their own neighbourhoods. Such attitudes can create a clear conflict for
councillors between doing what’s best for the wider local economy and representing the views of
their constituents in their particular wards.
9. Mayors may help cities attract new powers from Whitehall and make the UK less centralised.
The UK is one of the most centralised countries in the OECD (see Figure 2). Since being created the
Mayor of London has lobbied for, and successfully gained, additional powers over planning, housing,
waste, public health, fire, policing and transport.xxiv Cities with elected mayors will automatically pass
the coalition’s strong governance test for further devolution of power under the new City Deals.xxv
Liverpool has already announced it has done a ‘city deal’ with the government in which it will switch
to being governed by a mayor and receive new powers over planning, revenue raising and £130
million in additional funding from central government.xxvi However, established mayoralties such as
Middlesbrough have yet to attract additional powers.
Figure 2: Central government share of general government spending (%, 2009)
Source: OECD 2009xxvii
10. Whether or not mayors increase costs may be up to individual local authorities. The DCLG
impact assessment on mayors estimates their additional remuneration costs to be £70,613. Mayoral
salaries are on average around £20,000 higher than council leaders but pension contributions and
national insurance add to the overall cost increase.xxviii
Introducing a mayor need not automatically raise costs, however. Five out of the twelve mayoral
local authorities contacted by the Institute for Government in 2010 had either already reduced the
number of councillors since switching to the mayoral system or were planning to in future. These
councils expect to reduce councillor numbers by eighteen on average.xxix On the conservative
assumption that each of those councillors receiving £10,000 in allowances such measures (which
would still leave more than one councillor per ward) would more than compensate for the additional
cost of mayors.
Areas in which mayors are unlikely to make a difference 11. Mayors have not improved ethnic or gender diversity of leaders. Of the twenty two people to
have held mayoral office in the UK so far, only two have been women (Dorothy Thornhill in Watford,
8
and Linda Arkley in North Tyneside) and only one has been from ethnic minority group (Lutfur
Rahman in Tower Hamlets).
Unpublished Institute for Government research cited in this briefing is embargoed until 06:00, Thursday 29th March 2012
9
Elected Mayors: Why Now & What Now?
Keith Grint
Professor of Public Leadership & Management, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick
02476 150472 or 07771 600836 [email protected] Warwick University has funded a series of Warwick Commissions into important aspects of
contemporary life and this piece of work stems from the Warwick Commission on Elected Mayors.
The Commission has funded a researcher (Clare Holt) to undertake a sequence of interviews with
mayors, their officers and related experts, across the world and so far that has involved 38
interviews in Australia, England, Canada and New Zealand as well as group discussions and a short
ethnographical study.
Why Now?
The history of local government in the UK has often been described as one rooted in the centralizing
fetish of the state – the veritable ‘Norman Yoke’ – bolted on to the decentralized chaos of the Anglo-
Saxon heritage; as long as ‘the locals’ kept their house in order then London was content to ignore
them – only when disease, squalor or riot infringed upon the metropolis did Whitehall decide to ‘do
something’ about the ‘locals’. Indeed, since the central state was usually more interested in external
wars and empires most of the time its focus was outwards not inwards. This is most obvious in
considering the origins of the Bank of England – initiated in 1694 to cover the government’s debt
accumulated from foreign wars. It is also worth pointing out that the local establishment was just as
concerned to limit central power – and thereby central taxation – as any romantic notion of ‘Little
Englanders’ desperately defending their local freedoms. Thus, for example, before Peel’s
Metropolitan police took control of the streets of London the local landed establishment lobbied
very effectively to prevent anything approaching a national force. How else could they stop an
organization that would be ‘expensive, tyrannical and foreign’, especially when most people (that is
the landed establishment) ‘would rather be robb’d...by wretches of desperate fortune than by
ministers’ (quoted in Flanders, 2011: 76).
From this historical quagmire we can trace the significance – and limits – of the locale, the place, for
it is constituted as a bulwark against the perceived tyranny of a high spending and taxing
Westminster, a site of personal and collective identity, and simultaneously an arena where frugality
and laissez faire are the orders of the day; what Young (1989: 6) describes as a ‘Ratepayer
Democracy.’ This also locks into a general disinterest in local government on the part of the
electorate with low turn-outs, little knowledge and a widespread disengagement (Copus, 2001).
That tension between the centripetal forces of Whitehall and the centrifugal forces of the local
establishment might also account for another paradox: the localism agenda combined with the
reluctance of the government to prescribe particular powers to newly elected mayors in advance of
elections – who may, of course, not be elected because they are perceived to lack the powers
necessary to instigate change.
10
But almost 100 years after the death of Joseph Chamberlain we seem a long way from his vision for
an invigorated city, in his case, Birmingham. Why has that possibility re-emerged now? The rise of
Elected Mayors in the twenty-first century is probably not a coincidence. Indeed, there seem to be
three related aspects of contemporary local politics that might explain the phenomenon: it is
perceived by some as a tripod of fatalism: faceless, placeless and pointless.
(1) Faceless. We now live in a world that – to some– appears to be out of their control and instead
controlled by some anonymous political bureaucracy – local or central - or by a global corporation –
it is ‘faceless’; here the possibility of an elected mayor offers a face to trace the accountability of
leadership that seems to disappear in the traditional party dominated committees or global
investors. Contrast this with Mayor Nenshi of Calgary who suggested that his direct public election
gave him not just the political authority but the ‘moral authority’ to lead the city. Mayor Nenshi also
seems to represent a growing trend amongst mayors: they have to be adept not just at leadership
but the performance of leadership: the spinning of a narrative that catches the voters’ imagination
and binds them to the inclusive vision of the mayor. Or, as Mayor Brown of Auckland suggested: ‘Tell
a story about the city, past and future... people have to see your love for the place and if you have
that sense of passion about the place that you live, and you care about that passion and the people,
then the story will present itself.’
(2) Placeless. The world that we live in could literally be anywhere in the world because the world all
looks the same – in this globalized world it is literally ‘placeless’- unless, of course, you happen to
live in the one of the large cities that seem to be able to be able to stamp their geographical and
social identity upon the placeless world. Thus the rise of mayors seems to relate to the importance
of ‘place’: in some places mayors may not be an appropriate alternative system of governance, and
it may be that Manchester, for example, is a place that has already developed a powerful identity.
This brave new world of ‘civicism’ also suggests that the political footprint of the elected mayor
needs to coincide with the economic footprint to makes the best use of regional resources, and
Mayor Brown of Auckland is a good example of this in his ability to effect a transport infrastructure
strategy that had bedevilled the prior group of eight directly elected local mayors in Auckland’s
regions.
(3) Pointless. The third element of this tripod of fatalism is that this faceless and placeless world
seems to be proceeding in a directionless way because all routes lead to the same valueless
direction – it is literally ‘pointless’. Here we might benefit from considering the work of Max Weber,
a German sociologist writing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century who argued that the
future would increasingly be constrained by, and contained within, an ‘iron cage’ of bureaucracy. By
this he meant an increasingly predictable and controlled (western) world that would proceed
through the advance of science and rationality to dismantle all prior systems of thought – including
magic, religion etc. This was the project of Modernity. Simultaneously, the progressive
rationalization of cultural life eroded the value basis of political life as the rule of law, the
autonomous judiciary and the depoliticized bureaucracy increasingly enhanced the role of the expert
at the expense of the patriot, the technocrat at the expense of the idealist, and the bureaucratic
leader at the expense of the charismatic leader. This was the process of Modernization and,
according to Weber, it was the process of Modernization that undermined the project of Modernity.
There were – and are - (at least) three possible scenarios that play out this project.
11
What now?
1. The Nautilus – the nautilus is an extraordinarily efficient mollusc that had no way of directing
itself against the currents of the oceans that it floats within, so in political terms what was the
purpose of electing political leaders when they had no political values just technical expertise? This
option sees the modernity project continue under the rise of a political class that is concerned with
notions of efficiency and that, whilst inhabiting different political parties, actually have similar
political projects at heart. Here we might adopt Oborne’s (2007) argument that the UK has
witnessed the rise and triumph of a political elite – the term originally used by Mosca (1939) - a
political class – that has less to do with the same educational background (private school and
Oxbridge) and more to do with having the same career paths and the same intention: to rule, but
not to rule to achieve some political ideal, just to rule. What previously drove politically interested
individuals to stand for parliament, that is, class interests, their locality or some other civic good or
goal, no longer separates out the party faithful. There is now a professional ‘career’ not ‘a calling’ –
or a ‘vocation’ - the term that Weber used to describe those whose values propelled them into the
political world. This first route foresees a flat land devoid of value but dominated by a professional
elite whose activities can be measured by the slow erosion of interest in traditional political parties
and the gradual reduction of the proportion of the electorate bothering to vote. Is this why elected
mayors have come to the surface: as a way of invigorating the body politics and answering the
question: ‘what is politics for?’ Many of the mayors in our research suggested that their ability to
stay above party politics enabled them to focus on the needs of their citizens, not the needs of their
party; and, ironically, it was this undermining of political parties that facilitated their ability to lead
effectively.
(2) The Saviour(s) The second route foretells of two disparate but possible related responses: the
rise of the ‘powerless’, the invasion of the ‘occupiers’, the ‘99%’ and so on, but also the possibility of
a charismatic who would forcefully impose their will upon what might seem to be a rudderless
populace. The saviour’ captures this messianic element and is doubly problematic because the four
year tenure that allows mayors to focus externally and not worry too much about internal dissent –
the very structural feature that liberates mayors and their decision-making from bureaucratic party
politics also generates two counter-productive possibilities:
The public expectations are very high that an elected mayor can perform miracles - and satisfying
those expectations will prove very difficult. This is especially so when it is not clear in advance what
the powers of a mayor will be. As Dorothy Thornhill, Mayor of Watford Town Council suggested, ‘The
public expectation is that you have power – it needs to be looked at or you’ve got one hand tied
behind your back. Until you are in the job, you don’t really know what powers you need and what
frustrations you face. Every city/town is different so you need to be flexible with each area’.
Saviours are very susceptible to the three H’s: the Horrible Habit of Hubris, and the voters are very
susceptible to their nemesis: the three S’s: See the Scapegoats Suffer! Perhaps this reflects the
concerns of many, especially councillors, that the scrutiny and recall powers are too weak and we
might turn to the Japanese approach to reflect on this problem – article 178 of the Japanese Local
Autonomy Law notes that a vote of no-confidence in the local government leader by the local
assembly (66% quorum and 75% of those present) automatically dissolves the assembly itself after
ten days; in effect a system of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ensures a level of collective
sacrifice that inhibits game playing by political parties.
12
(3) The Centaur Weber heralded a third alternative - the ‘politician with a sense of vocation’
(berufspolitiker) – someone who could harness the utility of the rationality of the modern world to a
moral vision and whose power was directly derived from the public mandate rather than the
traditional party political mandate. This Weber recognized as a tension ridden contradiction because
it combined ‘the ethic of conviction’ – the value based vision of the political end that could not be
constrained by concerns about the means, with the ‘ethic of responsibility’ – the realization that
politics was ultimately about compromise. This person Weber calls a ‘total personality’. Do mayors
fit this strange centaur - half human/half beast - image with the ability to re-enchant the body politic
where it needs re-enchanting, to inject some sense of political vision into a sterile political world
where the political class is deemed to be bereft of ideas except for self-aggrandisement, yet
grounded in enough common sense to avoid the apparent lunacy of some charismatic leaders across
the world. Finally, do these kinds of elected mayors offer the possibility of a leader whose very
method of election and larger constituency facilitates a greater status both for themselves and their
cities? Is this, to answer the most important question, what a mayor is for?
13
The mayoral referendums Peter John, Professor of Public Policy, University College London 07780 983928 [email protected]
1. General considerations about referendums. Referendums are often thought to express a democratic ideal and to ensure effective political participation as they are a direct mandate from the people. But in practice citizens tend to find issues in referendums hard to grasp because they are often far removed from their day-to-day concerns. Citizens are good at assessing politicians’ performance and articulating their concerns; they are less good and interested in appraising the technical and constitutional questions common in referendums. As a result referendums can be guided by the wording of the question, the influence of the media and style and content of the campaign. Referendums often attract a populist response from local interest groups, which can exert an influence during the campaign.
2. Referendums in the UK. Referendums were introduced in the 1970s for the big questions of the day, such as European Community membership in 1975. They were used much more under the Labour government 1997-2010 with referendums on devolution in Scotland and Wales, London government, Northern Ireland, directly elected mayors and regional government in the North East. Also there were referendums on congestion charging, e.g. Greater Manchester. Many referendums failed to get the majorities needed. The last referendum was on the Alternative Vote in 2011, which neatly shows the bias toward the existing state of affairs and the importance of the campaign in shaping the outcome.
3. The Local Government Act 2000. These referendums tended to take place in the
smaller places, or places with histories of anti-politics, such as Middlesborough and Hartlepool. The exceptions were the London councils. The problem was that local party elites did not support the executive reforms, so influencing the results through local media and party supporters, when the public was reluctant to approve changes on something they did not have much knowledge about. Some low turnouts made public more receptive to party cues as mainly party identifiers were voting (though on average the turnout was the same as local elections).
4. The North East referendum 2004. The proposal to introduce regional government by
referendums, starting with the North East, was a classic example of the way in which no campaigns get momentum, so leading to the rejection of the measure by a ratio of 78:22. The story of the campaign is recounted in a chapter by Steven Musson, Peter John and Adam Tickell in Mark Sandford, The Northern Veto (2009). The key findings of this ESRC-funded study are that the clarity of the campaign message is critical, that the campaign had clear turning points, which gave momentum to the No campaign; and local groups and campaigners were skillful in influencing the course of events. The stance of the media was critical. The Yes campaign was divided over local government reorganization.
14
5. 2012 mayoral referendums. Referendums will take place to introduce a directly elected mayor for Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield on 3 May at the same time as other local elections. In contrast to 2002-2003, these are in the big cities. But there are large differences across the cities in the support of the local party elites (see below). Doncaster will vote as to whether to retain the directly elected mayor.
6. The early runners. A sign of momentum is that on 7 February 2012, Liverpool City Council decided to have a vote for a directly elected mayor with effect from May 2012. The council decided to go early to qualify for £130m funds for the city (which was denied by Nick Clegg). The example shows the importance of support from local party elites. Also Salford also voted yes by 56:44 (18 per cent turnout) after a referendum was triggered by petition of 10,500 signatures to the council in July 2011.
7. A Better scenario in 2012? It is significant that the larger cities are involved but these
were compelled by central government so may suffer a similar fate as a decade earlier because not all local party elites support the change. But the failure of regional government means that there are few other institutional options for elites to become focused on or to split over, as with the North East referendum. The example of successive London mayors who appear to secure investments like Crossrail is an incentive for other city leaders to back a mayoral option. Then there is the example of Liverpool, which has been an early trial blazer, and maybe a spur to the others who may fear being left out. But voters lack knowledge about the issues. An opinion poll published in March 2012 by Gfk NOP for the BBC indicates that almost two-thirds of people who responded did not know there was going to be a referendum (The company surveyed 500 people each in Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Wakefield and Doncaster). 53% said yes to elected mayor, 37% no, 10% did not know. These figures suggest the referendums could yield majorities for mayors but voters’ lack of knowledge of the issue could lead to last minute swings in preferences. Finally, it is important not to underestimate the importance of populist campaigns, such as no campaign in Birmingham, which compared a mayor to Hitler, which may have had an impact in spite of support for the mayoral option from the city’s political leadership. There are also variations in the degree of local party elite support across the cities. The political parties are opposed in Bradford, there is more support in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, but divisions in Sheffield.
8. Conclusions. It is likely that England will see elected mayors governing more of its major cities in 2012, which is different to the previous attempt to introduce them in the early 2000s. There is less opposition in local areas and voters are likely to be less fearful of a leap into the unknown, especially with the example of the London mayor. There is some momentum for change, but past referendums show the importance of local campaigns in determining the final outcome.
15
i Funded by Communities and Local Government but independently conducted by a team from Manchester University and Southampton University led by Gerry Stoker ii All tables from S. Greasley and G. Stoker ‘Mayors and Urban Governance: Developing a Facilitative Leadership Style?’ Public Administration Review, July/August, 2008, 720-8 iii http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17304093 iv http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/03/09/more-than-half-of-brummies-not-aware-of-birmingham-elected-mayor-referendum-97319-30490799/ v http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/13/mayor-english-cities-referendum-birmingham vi Gash, T. and Sims, S. (forthcoming), What can Elected Mayors do for our Cities?, Institute for Government. Page 6 vii http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17304093 viii http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/03/09/more-than-half-of-brummies-not-aware-of-birmingham-elected-mayor-referendum-97319-30490799/ ix http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/154842.pdf x Institute for Government data xi Institute for Government data xii http://bristolmayor.org/ xiii http://yestobirminghammayor.com/ xiv http://www.newcastlemayor.org.uk/yeslaunched.html xv http://covyes.co.uk/ xvi http://www.nonewcastlemayor.org.uk/ xvii http://www.votenotoapowerfreak.org.uk/ xviii
http://www.birminghampost.net/news/politics-news/2012/02/27/chamber-of-commerce-backs-call-for-birmingham-elected-mayor-65233-30416291/ xix Gash, T. and Sims, S. (forthcoming), What can Elected Mayors do for our Cities?, Institute for Government. Page 10 xx Cited in Michael Kenny and Guy Lodge ‘Mayors Rule’ Public Policy Research Vol. 15, Issue 1. xxi Parker S., ‘Assessing the Local Authority Mayors Outside London’ in Gash, T. and Sims, S. (forthcoming), What can Elected Mayors do for our Cities?, Institute for Government xxii Roger B., ‘London’s borough mayors: the story so far’ in Gash, T. and Sims, S. (forthcoming), What can Elected Mayors do for our Cities?, Institute for Government xxiii ‘Voter turnout in city elections’, Urban Affairs Review November 2002 vol. 38 no. 2 209-231 xxiv Travers T., ‘The Mayor of London: retrospect and prospect’ in Gash, T. and Sims, S. (forthcoming), What can Elected Mayors do for our Cities?, Institute for Government xxv http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files_dpm/resources/CO_Unlocking%20GrowthCities_acc.pdf xxvi http://liverpool.gov.uk/council/performance-and-spending/budgets-and-finance/city-deal/ xxvii
OECD, Government at a Glance, 2009. At: http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3746,en_2649_33735_47736841_1_1_1_1,00.html xxviii
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1829754.pdf xxix Institute for Government own data
![SQT Voting and Referendums 2010 2011[1]](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/577d2a291a28ab4e1ea8cf8d/sqt-voting-and-referendums-2010-20111.jpg)
